I am guessing she wants pit bulls banned. And since every pit bull ban I have heard of also covers pit bull mixes, that would cover this dog.

Pit bulls (and pit bull mixes) seem to regularly be the object of breakins and thefts at shelters. Here is another recent story: http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060907/NEWS01/609070338/1001

Plus, of course, in Texas, the few survivors from the big dog fighting bust are under 24/7 security because people have tried to get to them. (Not, obviously, their former loving owners because they were such beloved companions....)

babyrocky1

September 8th, 2006, 06:32 PM

I doubt very much that this is a regular occurance. (pit bulls being broken out of pounds or shelters) it has never to my knowledge happened in Ontario and it sure is tempting! Many dogs have been seized in Ontario just because of their breed and nothing to do with their "deed" !

Since there is a "pit bull" ban in Ontario at the present time we are quite familiar with the goings on, the politics, the media, and the motivations behind these bans.

Since statistics in Ontario only show that the most common offenders when it comes to serious bite stats are german shepherds in Toronto and Black Labs in Ottawa, our two largest citys, this is one of the myriad of reasons that we know that these bans are born out of exploitation of the ignorance of the general public by unscrupulous politicians and media that like to exploit the reputation of the "pit bull"

Pit bulls sell papers and other dog attacks do not.
These stories should be taken with a grain of salt since virtually none of the reports regarding any aspect of the "pit bull" situation in Ontario were completely accurate!
I realise these stories do not take place here, but I believe the dynamic and the predudice behind these kinds of reports has unfortunately become universal. I use Ontario as it is the example that I live with every day of my life. BTW my "pit bull" has never been in a dog fight in his life, nor have most that attend out group bullie walks, not even the rescue bullies have been a problem. Infact they are a joy and I am proud just to know them.

wdawson

September 8th, 2006, 07:28 PM

babyrocky

just shows the mentality of the majority of the public.......and the media love negative stories.....the only story i really remember as positive is the nevell story........we responable pet owners are never given any praise........i had a customer the other day ask if i had dogs.....i told her i had two.....a 14 year old beagle......mentioned she had a beagle that passed from cancer at 8......when i told her about beathoven.....her response i hope you keep him muzzled..........my dogs would run rings around hers.......i thought stupid bi**h

babyrocky1

September 8th, 2006, 07:35 PM

I know W DAwson, I get comments like that daily, just the other day when I was bringing Rocky home after his hematoma operation, I was struggling to carry the poor guy up the stairs when some woman came and asked me if he was in a dog fight! GRRRRR! thats e growlimg not my pup...
Infact, and ironicaly, he had given himself the hematoma from constantly banging his head (ear) on the ground trying to get the muzzle off!

Cygnet

September 8th, 2006, 07:50 PM

I truly don't get it. When bad things happen that involve pit bulls, is it always the fault of "the media" in the eyes of the pit bull community? I mean, when I read this story, I think that the breeder of this dog was highly irresponsible (pit bull/mastiff? Why? And that level of unabated and unprovoked dog aggression came from somewhere) and the owner was highly irresponsible (dog got out and mauled a dog in front of its fourteen year old owner and bit somebody's finger off--do you suspect that she knew her dog was capable of doing that before the dog somehow got loose?) and there is yet another person (perhaps, although it might be one of the two already mentioned) connected to the dog who is both irresponsible and criminal (the person who stole the dog from the shelter) and the best the pit bull community can do is rant (again) about "the media?"

Do you think that "the media" should have ignored this story? It seems pretty newsworthy to me. And, sorry, but if you are going to make the argument that this is about "the media" using the pit bull factor to "sell papers," then why isn't "pit bull" even mentioned in the headline?

But more than that, all this incessant blaming of "the media" is completely pointless. Pit bull people, guess what? The media is what it is and it isn't going to change. As long as horrific pit bull attacks keep occurring with reasonable regularity, even garden variety pit bull bites are going to attract more media coverage than garden variety beagle bites. You can rant and rail about that forever and it isn't going to change. Think of the attention that the media gives to minor shark bites following any really bad shark attack--most of the time they ignore them. (Of course, right now the media is interested in sting rays.)

Why not, instead, focus on stuff you can at least have a hope of changing? (Irresponsibly bred pit bulls, high pit bull levels of dog aggression, etc.) I suspect I know the answer to this, but you can tell me if I am wrong: Blaming "the media" for pit bull problems means that pit bull people don't have to change a thing that they are doing--they can keep breeding pit bulls in horribly irresponsible numbers and pit bulls can keep dying. If you actually get a handle on some of that (and, yes, it will require breed specific legislation to change the behavior of people who don't want to change their behavior, although breed bans shouldn't be necessary), pit bulls have a hope of survival, but a lot of pit bull breeders will be put out of business.

That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

jesse's mommy

September 8th, 2006, 07:58 PM

Cygnet you do realize there are a lot of pitty owners on this board and are completely against BSL right? You are obviously pro-BSL and that is a shame.

Unfortunately you did not see the point babyrocky and wdawson were making. They were pointing out that it's a shame that only pitty's are in the media. What about the fact that there are more attacks by golden retrievers than there are pit bulls? You don't hear about those attacks. Why doesn't the media run stories on the good of pitbulls? There are plenty of good stories, but you don't hear about them. The only attacks you hear about in the media are from pitbulls -- THAT'S IT. You don't hear about other breeds attacking even though the other breeds outweigh pitty attacks. It's just a shame that there is so much prejudice out there for such a wonderful breed and this could all end if people would just educate themselves.

babyrocky1

September 8th, 2006, 08:05 PM

I dont know who you are are referring to when you speak of "pit bull People'
The people here do a heck of alot more than rant about the media, my point is simply that I dont believe what they write and I am going by my own experience. There have been extremely sensationalised media reports here that had very little to do with the truth. Also I wasnt reffering to the one story, I was referring to an attitude and to the fact that you made a point that this "dog nappimg" is a common occurance, my point is that it is not here!
Back to the "pit bull people" we do one heck of alot more than rant about the media! Many of the people here are involved in rescuing the bullies FROM the irresponsible owners! Many others have dedicated years of their lives fighting the intolerance and the injustice politically, Legally, we have taken our government to court with the best constitutional lawer in the country. Our little "pit bull co-op" has raised five thousand dollars to help the costs. People spend their weekends lecturing about BSL, others devote themselves to teaching children about safely interacting with dogs. And still others volutnteer their time transporitng rescued dogs from death row in shelters to loving homes! These are temperment tested dogs BTW! ne of our regular posters went to Louisianna after Katrina to help with the dogs, many of them the dreaded "pit bull" so hey...I guess bashing the media is just a pass tiem with us cause over all were pretty darn busy!
Most of us here would be very happy to see Breeders of all DOGS be regulated and all of the people rescuing all breeds of dogs would love it if people owning pet quality pups would spay and nueter! We would all like to see a more educated public regarding all issues pertaining to responsible ownership and interaction so I really think you should pass on judging any of us as you really have no idea who the "pit bull " people are here or what we do or think! Seems like you have made quite a generalization yourself.

wdawson

September 8th, 2006, 08:21 PM

i also don't see much in the mass media about other breed attacks......but i do see stories in some local community papers........and yes we pit owners are very much against the bsl........as you will be when your breed is added...then we will then welcome you with our muzzles. all the anti bsl groups are fighting for your rights also.

I don't know where you get your information, jesse's mom, to state as a fact that golden retrievers "attack" more than pit bulls. There simply aren't any good nationwide (or even statewide) statistics in the US to make definate conclusions about which breeds of dog "attack." There ARE good statistics that demonstrate that a whole lot more pit bulls kill people than do golden retrievers, at least in the United States. (See Karen Delise's well researched book--"Fatal Dog Attacks," for example) . So that may be why it seems that the media spends more time talking about them.

But getting back to the need for breed specific legislation, 120 pit bulls a day die in Los Angeles California shelters. This is NOT because of breed bans or "prejudice" or "the media." It is because of irresponsible pit bull owners and breeders. NO other breed comes remotely close to those numbers. Why is this okay with pit bull people? Why aren't they screaming for LAWS that will put all of those people who are causing all of that pit bull suffering (the vast majority of those thousand dogs who die each week in Los Angeles alone suffered before they ended up in the shelter, because dogs don't typically go from loving homes directly to death row) out of business?

The answer, of course, is that they always say that they are for laws reglating the breeding of "ALL dogs." Okay. But laws regulating the breeding of "ALL dogs" aren't on the table. Total pit bull bans ARE ON THE TABLE unless you all propose and support something else viable to deal with the pit bull problem.

Why, if you recognize that laws regulating the breeding of pit bulls will help pit bulls, would you be AGAINST such laws? Maybe you wish they were broader, and affected all dogs, but so what? In my state, it is perfectly legal for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old girl. I think this is wrong. I would like for there to be laws preventing fifty year olds from having sex with ANY child. But I am not going to be against the laws that prevent men from having sex with twelve year olds just because I wish sixteen year olds were also similarly protected. That wouldn't make sense. So how does it make sense to be against stopping the irresponsible breeding of pit bulls just because the political will doesn't exist to stop the irresponsible breeding of pugs?

jesse's mommy

September 8th, 2006, 08:28 PM

What about ALL IRRESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS, not just irresponsible pit owners? I've seen more dangerous JRT's and chihuahuas than pitty's. What about those people? If you want to get on this subject, what about cats? Should they be banned and regulated as well? I have family members who have had cats that would have loved to shred your achilles tendon if given the chance. You would actually have to walk through the room with a shoe in your hand to throw towards the cat should it come towards you. I personally think this was rather dangerous, but did you hear about that? NO you didn't! As I said before, it's ALL IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS NOT JUST IRRESPONSIBLE PIT OWNERS. It's just a shame that you are as uneducated as you are and as wdawson said, I too will welcome you when your dog is on the ban list, but before I do welcome you I'll say "I told you so!"

wdawson

September 8th, 2006, 08:43 PM

i really don't see your point about their being a pit bull problem in general.everyone that i know that owns one of these faithfull , loving and caring dogs is a responsible owner.any dog can be used for fighting , i seem to remember that at one time dobermans where on the dangerous list , guess they are now lap dogs....well till they are popular again with the irresponsible pet owner , which i think will be soon.......keep your eye on the local media and not your national media....and you will soon see that all your beloved so called social breeds will increase in bites/attacks , and when the breed you own is included come tell us how the media overplayed the story and your breed is really a great breed.........ban the deed...AND NOT THE BREED.

Cygnet

September 8th, 2006, 08:43 PM

Jesse's Mom,

What is the source of your information that golden retrievers are more likely to attack than are pit bulls? I don't mean this in a mean way. I really would like to know.

babyrocky1

September 8th, 2006, 09:13 PM

I

But getting back to the need for breed specific legislation, 120 pit bulls a day die in Los Angeles California shelters. This is NOT because of breed bans or "prejudice" or "the media." It is because of irresponsible pit bull owners and breeders. NO other breed comes remotely close to those numbers. Why is this okay with pit bull people? Why aren't they screaming for LAWS that will put all of those people who are causing all of that pit bull suffering (the vast majority of those thousand dogs who die each week in Los Angeles alone suffered before they ended up in the shelter, because dogs don't typically go from loving homes directly to death row) out of business?
?
We ARE screaming for laws to protect "pit bulls" from irresponsible owners and breeders!!!! this is what we have been fighting for and YES we would like all dogs to be protected from irresponsible owners and breeders, LIKE PUPPY MILLS...If we allow BSL in any form, it diminishes the onus on the breeders, the owners, dog fighters, puppy millers, etc etc and focuses the attention on one specific breed of dog! In this case a "pit bull".
It gives the public a false sense of security regarding their safety as BSL targets one breed of dog rather than educating people on proper interaction with dogs and then you get IDIOTS thinking its okay to leave their kids unattended with a golden or a lab or a flipping weiner dog! All dogs that have killed.
Oh and in Ontario dogs most certainly DO go from loving homes to death row and that same scenario happens from Denver to Australia. Why dont you research how many completely innocent "pit bulls" that have been killed world wide simply because of their breed. BSL kills innocent dogs!

jesse's mommy

September 8th, 2006, 09:17 PM

So I guess a pomeranian should be on the BSL list too, what do you think?

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)

In Canine homicides and the dog bite epidemic: do not confuse them, it has been pointed out that the dog bite epidemic as a whole involves all dogs and all dog owners, not just the breeds most likely to kill.

In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:

Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.
An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).
Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.

wdawson

September 8th, 2006, 09:21 PM

babyrocky1

well said

jesse's mommy

September 8th, 2006, 09:43 PM

Thought this might be appropriate (the link is at the end):

Today’s media is filled with sensational headlines of dog attacks. Routinely quoted in these newspaper accounts are dated statistics from the Centers for Disease Control. The last CDC study released documented which breeds of dogs caused the most human fatalities from 1979 through 1998. While the CDC did an admirable job of studying fatal dog attacks, and went to great lengths to point out that irresponsible owners were the cause of most of these incidents, the media and lawmakers continue to use CDC statistics to substantiate claims that certain breeds of dogs are inherently more "vicious" than other breeds.

The result of sensationalizing individual incidents of severe or fatal dog attacks, included with the use of unexamined statistical "evidence" has created an unfortunate and inaccurate public and political perception as to the dangerousness and predictability of certain breeds of dogs. Despite enormous public and political interest in fatal dog attacks, there is no agency or organization that does investigative work (with the exception of this study) into each of the individual cases of fatal dog attacks and records the number and circumstances of fatal dog attacks on a continuous, yearly basis.

This study is conducted in an attempt to understand the human and canine behaviors that contribute to a fatal dog attack. Only in understanding the events and circumstances surrounding these incidents can we hope to prevent future tragedies.

STUDY FINDINGS:
After reviewing over 431 cases of fatal dog attacks it is apparent there is no single factor that translates in a lethal encounter between a person and a dog(s). A fatal dog attack is always the culmination of past and present events that include: inherited and learned behaviors, genetics, breeding, socialization, function of the dog, physical condition and size of the dog, reproductive status of dog, popularity of breed, individual temperament, environmental stresses, owner responsibility, victim behavior, victim size and physical condition, timing and misfortune.

While many circumstances may contribute to a fatal dog attack, the following three factors appear to play a critical role in the display of canine aggression towards humans;

Reproductive status of dog - (Includes: unaltered males dogs, bitches with puppies, children coming between male dog and female dog in estrus)
It is necessary to emphasize that a fatal dog attack is an exceptionally unusual event. Approximating 20 deaths per year in a dog population of 53 million yields an infinitesimal percent of the dog population (.0000004%) involved in a human fatality.

THE BREED FACTOR
Many communities and cities believe that the solution to prevent severe and fatal dog attacks is to label, restrict or ban certain breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous. If the breed of dog was the primary or sole determining factor in a fatal dog attack, it would necessarily stand to reason that since there are literally millions of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls and German Shepherd Dogs in the United States, there would have to be countless more than an approximate 20 human fatalities per year.

Since only an infinitesimal number of any breed is implicated in a human fatality, it is not only unreasonable to characterize this as a specific breed behavior by which judge an entire population of dogs, it also does little to prevent fatal or severe dog attacks as the real causes and events that contribute to a fatal attack are masked by the issue of breed and not seriously addressed.

Pit Bulls in particular have been in a firestorm of bad publicity, and throughout the country Pit Bulls often bear the brunt of breed specific legislation. One severe or fatal attack can result in either restrictions or outright banning of this breed (and other breeds) in a community. While any severe or fatal attack on a person is tragic, there is often a tragic loss of perspective as to degree of dangerousness associated with this breed in reaction to a fatality. Virtually any breed of dog can be implicated in a human fatality.

From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks worldwide). We are increasingly becoming a society that has less and less tolerance and understanding of natural canine behaviors. Breed specific behaviors that have been respected and selected for over the centuries are now often viewed as unnatural or dangerous. Dogs have throughout the centuries served as protectors and guardians of our property, possessions and families. Dogs have also been used for thousands of years to track, chase and hunt both large and small animals. These natural and selected-for canine behaviors seem to now eliciting fear, shock and a sense of distrust among many people.

There seems to be an ever growing expectation of a "behaviorally homogenized" dog - "Benji" in the shape of a Rottweiler. Breeds of dogs with greater protection instincts or an elevated prey-drive are often unfairly viewed as "aggressive or dangerous". No breed of dog is inherently vicious, as all breeds of dogs were created and are maintained exclusively to serve and co-exist with humans. The problem exists not within the breed of dog, but rather within the owners that fail to control, supervise, maintain and properly train the breed of dog they choose to keep.

CANINE AGGRESSION - AN OVERVIEW
It is important to emphasize that dogs bite today for the same reasons that they did one hundred or one thousand years ago. Dogs are no more dangerous today than they were a century or millennium ago. They only difference is a shift in human perception of what is and is not natural canine behavior and/or aggression and the breed of dog involved.

Examination of newspaper archival records dating back to the 1950’s and 1960’s reveal the same types of severe and fatal attacks occurring then as today. The only difference is the breed of dog responsible for these events. A random study of 74 severe and fatal attacks reported in the Evening Bulletin (Philadelphia, PA) from 1964-1968, show no severe or fatal attacks by Rottweilers and only one attack attributed to a Pit-Bull-type dog. The dogs involved in most of these incidents were the breeds that were popular at the time.

Over two thousand years ago, Plato extolled a basic understanding of canine behavior when he wrote "the disposition of noble dogs is to be gentle with people they know and the opposite with those they don’t know...." Recently, this fundamental principal of canine behavior seems to elude many people as parents allow their children to be unsupervised with unfamiliar dogs and lawmakers clamor to declare certain dogs as dangerous in response to an attack.

Any dog, regardless of breed, is only as dangerous as his/her owner allows it to be.

Addressing the issue of severe and fatal dog attacks as a breed specific problem is akin to treating the symptom and not the disease. Severe and fatal attacks will continue until we come to the realization that allowing a toddler to wander off to a chained dog is more of a critical factor in a fatal dog attack than which breed of dog is at the end of the chain.

Only when we become more knowledgeable, humane and responsible in our treatment of dogs can we hope to prevent future tragedies.

http://www.fataldogattacks.com/

And also another excerpt from the site:

While at times informative, statistics on fatal dog attacks can also be misleading. For example, a number of cases were a Pit Bull, Rottweiler or GSD were counted as causing a human fatality were in reality the direct result of gross human negligence or criminal intent (i.e. discarding a newborn in the yard where the dogs were kept, or cases of extremely emaciated animals, or cases were the dog was ordered or encouraged to attack the victim).

This study was conducted not to determine which breeds of dogs caused fatalities, but rather to examine the circumstances and events that precipitated an attack. Knowing how many Pit Bulls or Rottweilers caused a human fatality has little applicable value, only when examining each case individually can we hope to gain insight into the HUMAN and CANINE behaviors that contributed to these tragic events.

Cygnet

September 8th, 2006, 10:02 PM

As to how many "innocent" (you put that in quotes, I don't know why--which dogs aren't "innocent?") pit bulls have been killed because of breed specific legislation, please tell me specifically how the laws I propose (mandatory microchipping of all pit bulls, mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls except AKC and UKC-PR show dogs) would result in the deaths of ANY responsibly owned pit bulls. How would the laws I propose even result in any serious inconvenience for any responsible pit bull owners or breeders?

Of course, irresponsibly owned pit bulls will die under my proposed laws. But since 120 of them are already dying PER DAY in Los Angeles shelters alone, without any breed specific legislation, that is nothing new. What my laws would do is cut down on the numbers by putting many of the most irresponsible breeders of pit bulls out of business. How do you propose to cut down on the number of pit bulls dying every day in Los Angeles shelters? Surely you can't think it is acceptable that 120 pit bulls die in Los Angeles per day, can you? And, no, virtually NONE of the pit bulls on Los Angeles' death row went directly from loving homes to death row. Many of them suffered incredibly before they ended up waiting to die a terrified death among strangers.

So, since I am not advocating any breed specific legislation that would result in any responsibly owned pit bulls being killed, all your talk about "breed specific legislation" (by which you mean laws I DON'T propose or support) isn't relevant, is it? You say "BSL kills innocent dogs." Unless you can support that the specific breed specific legislation I support kills innocent dogs, that is a slogan that has been shown to be way overbroad.

You CAN fairly say that complete breed BANS kill innocent dogs of course. But since I don't support complete breed bans, my "breed specific legislation" no more murders dogs than the "breed specific legislation" that was passed in Wisconsin, designating a breed as the State Dog does.

Who knows what the Wisconsin State dog is?

jesse's mommy

September 8th, 2006, 10:04 PM

YOUR LAWS???? Who are you?

wdawson

September 8th, 2006, 10:16 PM

do you really think that irresponsable owners will follow YOUR LAW or any other.........get your head out of the sand..........drugs are against the law....drug dealers are everywhere..........child molesters who have been registered as offenders still reoffend.........

wdawson

September 8th, 2006, 10:29 PM

why dont we ban all dogs.......and be done with it....all dogs can attack if pushed enough.....and the owner is not responsable.......hey why not start a human bsl.........oh where to start.....

jesse's mommy

September 8th, 2006, 10:44 PM

why dont we ban all dogs.......and be done with it....all dogs can attack if pushed enough.....and the owner is not responsable.......hey why not start a human bsl.........oh where to start.....

I'll just keep my little old mouth shut on this one because I can go on a rampage with that too. :evil:

Prin

September 8th, 2006, 11:40 PM

Just some useless stats to prove a point:
From 1979 through 1994, attacks by dogs resulted in 279 deaths of humans in the United StatesThat's 279 over 15 years. That's 18.6 a year for a population of around 300 million.

Just to compare:
How many people died in car crashes last year alone in the US? around 50,000

How many people died from illnesses related to smoking in the US? More than 400,000.

How many people died an alcohol related death last year in the US? nearly 80,000.

How many people died because of drunk drivers? nearly 17,000.

How many people died of AIDS last year? 15,000

How many dogs died at the hands of abusive humans last year in the US?
We don't know. There are so many that they just don't count them. :sad:

Breed bans are pointless and are a way for the government to divert the attention from the REAL issues in communities, provinces and countries. Why isn't tobacco banned yet? If deaths are really the issue here, what is going on? What policies/laws are they passing while we're busy with this garbage?

Watchdog

September 9th, 2006, 06:51 AM

It makes me wonder how many dog attacks on people are the result of someone trying to break up a dog fight with their bare hands as in this case with the Pit-Mastiff. If you try to break up a dog fight with your bare hands you will get bit every time regardless of the breed. Even if it is your own dog you run a very high chance of getting bit. Then the dog gets the blame with the." Oh my God, I dont know what happened!!! the dog just "turned" B.S.

rainbow

September 9th, 2006, 02:16 PM

Good post, Prin. :highfive:

Watchdog, you are 100% correct. :thumbs up

babyrocky1

September 9th, 2006, 08:54 PM

As to how many "innocent" (you put that in quotes, I don't know why--which dogs aren't "innocent?") pit bulls have been killed because of breed specific legislation, please tell me specifically how the laws I propose (mandatory microchipping of all pit bulls, mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls except AKC and UKC-PR show dogs) would result in the deaths of ANY responsibly owned pit bulls. How would the laws I propose even result in any serious inconvenience for any responsible pit bull owners or breeders?

1. I did not put quotes around the word innocent, I put quotes around the word "pit bull" as there is no agreement as to what the term means. Most particularly when it comes to what it means legally. There is no scientific way to prove that a dog is or is not a "pit bull" if even there were a concensus on what a "pit bull" is.
Since these vague terms are the basis for many a law suit, I believe that the quotes are signifigant.

2. On principle I do not believe in BSL of any kind, I will give you some points however for not going s far as to ban the breed and I dont think you have stated that bullies should be muzzled. Obviously this is preferable to what we have now, but it is still bad law. It still sends the dangerous signal that there is some thing to be feared from a "pit bull" that is not present in other breeds of dogs. You are still punishing the dog for something that it is not responsible for and still not deal ing with the root causes of what problems do exist. Again, in Ontario many amendnents were presented to the commitee pretending to look into this and they included mandatory spaying and nuetering of ALL pet quality dogs. They also included things like having the OWNERS and BREEDERS of "attack trained dogs, fighting dogs, neglected dogs etc. to face toughter sentences as well as being BANNED from Dog ownership in the future! That way the persons actually responsible are held accountable! Mandatory education for children in school about safety with dogs was also recocommended, and not just at this committee, but by a coroners inquest into the death of a child killed by a dog (not a pit bull) in Ontario. I could go on and on but BSL of any kind diminishes the chances of positive outcomes when it comes to trying to get decent laws passed. Go back to Lokis post and I think you will understand the whole story, if thats what you really want to do is understand our point of view or do you just want to push yours?
And if you do believe that this is the best way to go then why not do something about it, why not go to these dumb a$$ politicions who are pushing for Breed bans which you now say you dont agree with and get them to listen to you??? thats what we are spending all of our time, money, energy, doing so give it a try...see how far you get, I already know how far...no where my friend, cause these guys just want there name in the paper and what your calling for is not extreme enough for sensationalized headlines!

As Jesses mom, Prin, have pointed out as well as other posters, dog attacks do not present the kind of danger overall as they are made out to when compared with other dangers we all face in day to day life.
This summer we have had a horrific number of drownings, should we ban water? Swimmming pools maybe? How bout windows...lots of kids fall out of windows. Both the Canadian Safety Council and the Ontario Safety Counsil called BSL an over reaction. The Canadian Veterenary Assosciation as well as the Ontario VMA are against it. There were NO groups in the field that were for it at the commitee hearings.

seeker

September 9th, 2006, 09:05 PM

How anyone can call for a dog ban because they were bitten trying to break up a fight between 2 dogs would have been beyond my comprehension about 2 years ago but not anymore . People,because of "MEDIA" hype and government campaigns are all too ready to blame the dog for anything that goes wrong regardless of the true underlying cause . Usually the owner for failure to train the dog , confine the dog or recognize that the dog is out of control and do something about it before it become serious.Or maybe the dog was trained to attack either a person or other animal and given a command to do so.
Is the media to blame for our BSl problem here in Ontario ? I would have to say no we can blame that on a simple minded polititian with an adgenda aimed at looking like he is the problem solver we have been waiting for since Jesus died on the cross. The media was just along for the ride in our case .
Cygnet, you talk about "your laws" . In what state or province are your laws in effect ?My proposed law would ban any person guilty of a criminal act involving bodily harm , illegal gun posession as well as any known drug dealers from owning any breed of dog . But My law is not in effect anywhere either .
The fact is Bsl is killing dogs in Denver, here in Ontario and has done so in Winnepeg to name a few places . The reason for BSL is plain and simple it is a quick fix , much easier than going after a segment of people that have "rights" .{It also does nothing to protect the public because once that breed is gone the bad owners just get other types of dogs as they have done in Winnepeg where the dog of choice is a Sheppard now , I think} It is much easier to remove the dog from the irresponsible owners because a dog has no rights to worry about . In Ontario under BSL we as DOG owners have lost rights ,now have to open our doors to authorities for something as simple as someone thinking we might have a dangerous dog in the house . No incident required , no criminal act , no crimnal intent , nothing, owning a dog is enough .Merely an anoymous phone call from a neigbour that doesn't like you for any reason can make the call . Maybe you had a loud party the night before . No warrant required .They can walk in and take your dog , you stop them, you go to jail . Any dog it does not need to be a pitbull .
Excuse us if we are a little "touchy" on this one.

Prin

September 9th, 2006, 09:05 PM

Both the Canadian Safety Council and the Ontario Safety Counsil called BSL an over reaction. The Canadian Veterenary Assosciation as well as the Ontario VMA are against it. There were NO groups in the field that were for it at the commitee hearings.That's what makes me wonder what they're doing while we're distracted. Like Trudeau used to say, you have to pass the big controversial bills in the winter so nobody protests (too cold). BSL is just a way of pleasing the media-brainwashed many so they don't question the government. It makes the government look like it's taking action to solve a problem, but if it weren't for the media, the 'problem' wouldn't even be on the radar.

ChancesMom

September 10th, 2006, 01:35 AM

I agree about the sensationalizing of pit bull stories in the media...

What is happening is they take an item that is scarey and they put it out there as a warning and people just eat it up, much like the fake emails that go around warning off all sorts of nonsense that people not only believe, but they send it on to all their friends so that the story becomes so well known that everyone knows someone who thinks the story is real as they heard it from a friend...

The sad thing is that the stories are so out there that when something does happen anyone present thinks... "Oh my God! It's true!!! We need to do something NOW!"

Anyone who has ever seen a dog fight knows how vicious it looks, regardless of the size or breeds of dogs involved.

The movements and noises are downright scarey...

Now take that and put a person in there who may be scared of dogs to begin with who things that they are doing the right thing by breaking up a dog fight with their hands, and they get hurt....

Well, ummm... yeah! If a person jumps in the middle of a human fight, chances are that person would get hurt too!

So now because of a dog fight in their neighborhood this woman wants to put a ban on the pit bulls... :rolleyes:

We have no idea what lead up to the incident...

We do know that the pit bull mix was unlicensed, but we do not know why... and we cannot reasonably conclude that the owner was totally irresponsible as the owner did quickly pay the vet bills... so there is a lot of information missing in there that would tell us if this dog owner and/or dog was a problem.

In the past I had a small mixed breed dog who was attacked by a huge Saint Bernard. The attack was aweful and I thought that my dog might die... It was just soooo terrible... The story never made the papers and the dog was not put down.

I also was attacked by a black lab. The dog still lives next door but is now constantly chained up... The problem is the owners and I bet if that story made the papers and the dog was a pit bull people would have rallied to get the dog taken away and blah blah blah... but I am the one with the pit bull!

In fact, my dog got out ONCE since we had him and he ran over there to where that dog is chained up and that dog bit him in the head and my dog just rolled over as he is just a pussy cat. I was soooo worried for a long time, as even though there was blood the injuries were not that serious, but I was afraid that my dog might become aggressive because of the incident and then because of my dogs breed I would have a problem... but luckily that never happened.

I know I am rambling but I wanted to add that there is a basic public perception that when a little dog runs around barking and asserting itself that it is "awwww soooo adorable!" and when a pit bull, rottie or other "undesired" breed takes on a stance, growls, or heavens forbid, barks that people need to run and hide because it is oh so dangerous...

My sister has a little Chihuahua who thinks that she is the pack leader... and she tries to be dominant to other dogs... she has tried it with mine too but if my dog tries to get close to sniff her dog (which is what dogs do) she is like... ohhhhh get him away from my baby!!! Give me a break. Once he sniffs he lays down... lol!

Anyway, the short of my long babble is that if people were held more responsible for their actions then there would be less of a dog problem... and that putting more rules and regulations on responsible pet owners is not going to do diddly for the infractions as they are mostly caused by those who do not bother to license or properly care for their pet in the first place.

Cygnet

September 10th, 2006, 06:33 AM

Chance's Mom,

True. It is very dangerous to try to break up a dog fight. People often get hurt doing it. But, on the other side of the coin, we had a pit bull/mastiff attacking a child's dog right in front of the child. This wasn't a fight where it was all show. The child's dog was seriously injured DESPITE the fact that people tried to break it up quickly. And since pit bulls are bred for the trait of attacking other dogs until the other dog is dead, unless you are going to say that these adults should have stood around until the child's dog died, I think it is a little unfair to blame the human victim here.

If it were MY dog who was being attacked, you can bet I wouldn't have stood around, just so people wouldn't be blaming me later for being so stupid as to try to save my dog's life.

What, exactly, should the onlookers have done in your view? The pitbull/mastiff wasn't releasing its grip on the other dog and all indications are that he would have killed it had the fight continued. Pit bull dog fighters say that nobody should try to pull a pit bull off another dog, because that will almost certainly be impossible and if it is possible, will just increase the amount of injury. With two pit bulls fighting, the preferred method is a break stick, of course, but in order to use a break stick, you have to stick your hands and head right into the fray to put the stick in one dogs mouth. Since the pit bull method of fighting is to grip and shake, this is not as likely to be dangerous to the person, but most experts emphasize that you should NOT try this method with non-pit bulls because their style of fighting is to bite at random and you WILL get hurt. So what, exactly, should the onlookers have done?

People always say that the solution to dog problems is "holding owners responsible." But I don't know exactly what you are proposing. What should have happened to the owner in this case? Should she have had to go to jail? Should YOU have had to go to jail when your dog got out and terrorized the chained dog into biting him? (You were worried that your dogs temperament would be affected, but obviously the chained dog's owner also has a legitimate concern--it was your dog who was loose and breaking the law).

Of course, owners are "held responsible" right now. You pay the costs of the bad things that your dog does. Unfortunately, if your dog kills my dog, (in the vast majority of places), I can only collect fair market value for my dog. This is rarely more than a couple of hundred dollars and may be less. Where, exactly, is the economic incentive to not own a dog that is dangerous to other dogs?

Would $100,000 compensate any person in this board for the wrongful death of his/her dog? I know I wouldn't think it was a good trade. But how much more seriously people would take the issue of killer levels of dog aggression if there was a law saying that the owner of any dog who wrongfull killed another person's dog automatically was liable in the amount of $100,000. If people knew that they faced bankruptcy and losing their house if their dog killed another person's dog, then, golly, they might take the issue more seriously. (Their insurance companies certainly would, and insurance premiums would skyrocket for breeds known to kill other dogs with frequency).

So, when you talk about "holding people responsible," would you support a law that says that the owner of a dog who wrongfully kills another person's dog automatically owes that person $100,000?

Watchdog

September 10th, 2006, 07:24 AM

I believe in " holding people responsible " If you get bit trying to break up a dog fight with your bare hands then blame yourself instead of putting another dog on death row.

Cygnet

September 10th, 2006, 08:31 AM

I believe in " holding people responsible " If you get bit trying to break up a dog fight with your bare hands then blame yourself instead of putting another dog on death row.

Yikes. So you are saying that the person responsible for "putting another dog on death row" here is the person whose finger got bitten off when she was trying to stop a dog from killing another dog in front of the child owner of the dog being killed? I find that extremely odd. I would have thought that the person who was responsible for this dog being on death row was the dog's owner, who allowed her extremely dog aggressive dog to get loose or (perhaps) the irresponsible breeder who bred the dog in the first place.

What would YOU suggest these people do when hitting the dog with a two by four didn't make him stop trying to kill the other dog? Note, also, the person whose finger was bitten off (whom you blame for "putting another dog on death row" although of course, he has been stolen by somebody so he isn't there now), suffered this injury trying to save the child, who was backed up against a wall and trapped there by the fighting dogs.

Cygnet

September 10th, 2006, 08:51 AM

do you really think that irresponsable owners will follow YOUR LAW or any other.........get your head out of the sand..........drugs are against the law....drug dealers are everywhere..........child molesters who have been registered as offenders still reoffend.........

Well, yeah. I DO think that many of the zillions of irresponsible breeders of pit bulls are simply irresponsible. They aren't necessarily all criminals. Some will stop breeding pit bulls simply because they don't want to get in trouble. (Just as some people don't use drugs simply because they don't want to get in trouble and a whole lot of people don't drive at 100 mph simply because they don't want the amount of trouble that will get them in). It is a lot harder to breed pit bulls secretly than it is to use drugs secretly (or even to molest children secretly) after all. Just making it illegal to advertise illegally bred pit bull litters (i.e. no AKC or UKC-PR registration and no breeder's permit) would make it a LOT harder for these people to make a profit. Less profit means fewer people doing it.

But even if very few irresponsible breeders of pit bulls stop breeding them just because it is against the law, so what? There would be mechanism in place to stop at least some irresponsible pit bull breeders from breeding pit bulls. Wouldn't that be a GOOD thing?

Take, for example, the recent case in Texas where 200 plus pit bulls were seized. A murder was involved, so people are now talking and the dog fighting connections are pretty evident. But prior to the murder, if all the authorities had known was that this guy had 200 pit bulls on chains in a field, there really wasn't anything that they could have done about it. Don't you think that is wrong? Under a law saying that all pit bulls must be microchipped and spay/neutered unless they are akc or UKC-pr, the authorities could have said "Spay or neuter all your dogs or we will seize them." I absolutely, 100% guarantee that not a one of those dogs was either AKC or UKC-PR registered. None had been to a dog show in the last year. (At least not to the kind of dog show that doesn't subject its participants to felony prosecution). I also guarantee that few, if any, were spayed/neutered. And the owner would have been absolutely unwilling to keep 200 spayed/neutered pit bulls because they would not have any value to him. So authorities could have shut down a gigantic, irresponsible, criminal breeder of pit bulls without any problem.

Cygnet

September 10th, 2006, 09:18 AM

How anyone can call for a dog ban because they were bitten trying to break up a fight between 2 dogs would have been beyond my comprehension about 2 years ago but not anymore . People,because of "MEDIA" hype and government campaigns are all too ready to blame the dog for anything that goes wrong regardless of the true underlying cause . Usually the owner for failure to train the dog , confine the dog or recognize that the dog is out of control and do something about it before it become serious.Or maybe the dog was trained to attack either a person or other animal and given a command to do so.
Is the media to blame for our BSl problem here in Ontario ? I would have to say no we can blame that on a simple minded polititian with an adgenda aimed at looking like he is the problem solver we have been waiting for since Jesus died on the cross. The media was just along for the ride in our case .
Cygnet, you talk about "your laws" . In what state or province are your laws in effect ?My proposed law would ban any person guilty of a criminal act involving bodily harm , illegal gun posession as well as any known drug dealers from owning any breed of dog . But My law is not in effect anywhere either .
The fact is Bsl is killing dogs in Denver, here in Ontario and has done so in Winnepeg to name a few places . The reason for BSL is plain and simple it is a quick fix , much easier than going after a segment of people that have "rights" .{It also does nothing to protect the public because once that breed is gone the bad owners just get other types of dogs as they have done in Winnepeg where the dog of choice is a Sheppard now , I think} It is much easier to remove the dog from the irresponsible owners because a dog has no rights to worry about . In Ontario under BSL we as DOG owners have lost rights ,now have to open our doors to authorities for something as simple as someone thinking we might have a dangerous dog in the house . No incident required , no criminal act , no crimnal intent , nothing, owning a dog is enough .Merely an anoymous phone call from a neigbour that doesn't like you for any reason can make the call . Maybe you had a loud party the night before . No warrant required .They can walk in and take your dog , you stop them, you go to jail . Any dog it does not need to be a pitbull .
Excuse us if we are a little "touchy" on this one.

Seeker,

You are right. You didn't put "innocent" in quotes. You put "pit bull" in quotes. I apologize for mixing that up and mischaracterizing what you wrote.

I certainly understand that you are "touchy" about the subject of breed specific laws and I think that Ontario's law is a bad one. I hope you win in court and overturn the law. If it were in the US, I think that the chances that you will win in court would be slim, but have no idea what your chances are in Canada.

But it is really important for pit bull people to get past their general touchiness and look logically and rationally at the problem. Because there really is a pit bull problem, and it is breed specific and demands breed specific, real solutions, not just band aids and platitudes (everybody should be "educated" and the problem will go away). Indeed, if you do happen to get the breed ban in Ontario overturned, the pit bull community should immediately start to lobby hard for breed specific laws to stop the irresponsible breeding of pit bulls. Because even if the law goes away, the problem won't. (And, guess what? The media is going to be MORE zealous about reporting pit bull attacks if the law is overturned).

Unfortunately, the pit bull community has mostly convinced itself that there isn't a problem. Go to any "responsible" pit bull board and see how any story of a dog bite by a golden retriever or labrador is greeted with (I have to say this) delight. I have been on pit bull boards which absolutely ignored (that is, nobody even mentioned at all) current stories of pit bulls killing people but where the pit bull owners went on and on about some golden retriever somewhere who bit a child. Every pit bull person on the internet seems prepared to bring up the fact that a pomeranian killed a baby as conclusive evidence (I guess) that pomeranians are just as dangerous as pit bulls, despite the fact that it happened only once, six years ago (and it was a pomeranian mix, besides--a vet friend of mine saw a picture of the dog and identified it as a "mini-chow") . How many pit bulls have killed people since that pomeranian killed that baby? Do you even know?

The bottom line is that there are several big problems with pit bulls. The first is the public health issue and dangerousness. This is the one that politicians care about. If you don't find a way to solve that problem (by making pit bulls rare and by working to eliminate the problematic parts of pit bull temperament, such as dog aggression) politicians will find a way to do it for you (with total pit bull bans everywhere). The second problem is that pit bulls, themselves, are suffering horribly because of the same issues that make for the increased dangerousness. (Many, many horrible breeders and horrible owners and horrible overpopulation). Politicians really don't care about this part of the equation much. It is relatively easy and cheaply solved with sodium pentobarbital. But why don't pit bull people care about it enough to lobby for laws that will help pit bulls?

wdawson

September 10th, 2006, 09:56 AM

Well, yeah. I DO think that many of the zillions of irresponsible breeders of pit bulls are simply irresponsible. They aren't necessarily all criminals. Some will stop breeding pit bulls simply because they don't want to get in trouble. (Just as some people don't use drugs simply because they don't want to get in trouble and a whole lot of people don't drive at 100 mph simply because they don't want the amount of trouble that will get them in). It is a lot harder to breed pit bulls secretly than it is to use drugs secretly (or even to molest children secretly) after all. Just making it illegal to advertise illegally bred pit bull litters (i.e. no AKC or UKC-PR registration and no breeder's permit) would make it a LOT harder for these people to make a profit. Less profit means fewer people doing it.

But even if very few irresponsible breeders of pit bulls stop breeding them just because it is against the law, so what? There would be mechanism in place to stop at least some irresponsible pit bull breeders from breeding pit bulls. Wouldn't that be a GOOD thing?

Take, for example, the recent case in Texas where 200 plus pit bulls were seized. A murder was involved, so people are now talking and the dog fighting connections are pretty evident. But prior to the murder, if all the authorities had known was that this guy had 200 pit bulls on chains in a field, there really wasn't anything that they could have done about it. Don't you think that is wrong? Under a law saying that all pit bulls must be microchipped and spay/neutered unless they are akc or UKC-pr, the authorities could have said "Spay or neuter all your dogs or we will seize them." I absolutely, 100% guarantee that not a one of those dogs was either AKC or UKC-PR registered. None had been to a dog show in the last year. (At least not to the kind of dog show that doesn't subject its participants to felony prosecution). I also guarantee that few, if any, were spayed/neutered. And the owner would have been absolutely unwilling to keep 200 spayed/neutered pit bulls because they would not have any value to him. So authorities could have shut down a gigantic, irresponsible, criminal breeder of pit bulls without any problem.

I think anybody that has 200 dogs is in the wrong.Most cities that i know of have bylaws that limit the amount of domestic animals that one can keep , so yes they could have taken most of them.I dont have a problem with spay/neutering or microchipping , my problem is my dog is always seen as a monster in public,when i take my dogs out one is muzzled the other is not,also if something where to happen my dog is going to be the guilty one because of his breed,regardless if he was the aggressor or not.he gets a death sentence.

There are irresponsible breeders of all breeds and yes they are criminals for breeding pit bulls,atleast in ontario.If people are breeding pit bulls its for criminal activity(fighting or protection).Do you think these people care about akc or any other type of registration. I would also bet the breeders of those labradoodles you see in the stores have breeder permits.I think stopping any backyard breeder is good,regardless of the breed.

phoenix

September 10th, 2006, 10:14 AM

Indeed, if you do happen to get the breed ban in Ontario overturned, the pit bull community should immediately start to lobby hard for breed specific laws to stop the irresponsible breeding of pit bulls. Because even if the law goes away, the problem won't. (And, guess what? The media is going to be MORE zealous about reporting pit bull attacks if the law is overturned).

Very interesting point. I'd like to see this also. Of course, they do have their hands full at this moment fighting the bsl as it exists in Ontario now. I think you are right about the public backlash should be law be overturned and the media continue to report increasing incidences of attacks, raids on fighting rings, etc. It is in everyone's best interest (especially the dogs) if the community continues the fight FOR pitbulls after the law is overturned.

Unfortunately, the pit bull community has mostly convinced itself that there isn't a problem. Go to any "responsible" pit bull board and see how any story of a dog bite by a golden retriever or labrador is greeted with (I have to say this) delight.

Yes, this has upset me on this board too. It doesn't quite have the effect of rallying lab owners to the cause.

The second problem is that pit bulls, themselves, are suffering horribly because of the same issues that make for the increased dangerousness. (Many, many horrible breeders and horrible owners and horrible overpopulation). Politicians really don't care about this part of the equation much. It is relatively easy and cheaply solved with sodium pentobarbital. But why don't pit bull people care about it enough to lobby for laws that will help pit bulls?

I completely agree... You just have to look at the shelters and petfinder to see how many pitbulls and x are looking for homes... and these are the survivors. It makes me so upset to think of the ones still tethered to chains, used for fighting and other purposes.

Cygnet, I just want to say that you have taken a fairly unpopular stance here on the board BUT your arguments have been, in my opinion, informed, respectful, and coherent. Although you have been insulted you continue to be respectful of others in the debate. It's appreciated (by me anyway).

Prin

September 10th, 2006, 12:36 PM

Go to any "responsible" pit bull board and see how any story of a dog bite by a golden retriever or labrador is greeted with (I have to say this) delight.IMO, you're misunderstanding the delight. So many labs, golden retrievers, etc etc are misidentified as pitbulls by the media and especially by the police. That is what the "delight" is about- FINALLY a dog is not identified as a pitbull.

Remember this ugly bastid? He's a pitbull too according to the media. Not a super ugly who-knows-what-that-is mutt, a pitbull. So yes, when the media identifies this bastid as ANYTHING else, the pitty community is relieved. Who can blame 'em?

Loki

September 10th, 2006, 03:36 PM

Instead of dealing with generalizations and what-ifs, I tried to look at the specific laws that Cygnet is advocating. I believe, in the other thread, he/she mentioned San Fran’s SB 861 as a good example. (please correct me if I’m wrong).

First off, in terms of public interest - let’s be honest here. The information that I’ve seen states that 2 citizens showed support for the bill and 36 citizens opposed it (Those numbers may have changed, one way or the other, but the point is the numbers are REALLY small). The vast majority of support/opposition was the usual “animal rights” vs. “animal welfare” lobbies, breeders groups, anti-animal-companion groups etc, etc. My point is - this is a lobbyist/stakeholder deal, the general public, sadly, really couldn’t care less.

As for political grandstanding, again let’s be honest: The bill was introduced by Senator Jackie Speier leading up to her campaign to run for Lt Governor. She obviously, didn’t think the publicity would hurt. Obviously, there was a strong political interest at play – one way or the other.

That said,

My honest impression of the bill is that the choice not to ban has more to do with political expediency, than anything else. Breed specific laws were illegal in the state, and the law was altered to allow for breed specific spneuter. Even the proponents of the bill seem to admit that the mandatory spneuter angle is a work-around to try to avoid constitutional challenges etc.

I like that they make it illegal to declare a breed “dangerous, or potentially dangerous.” They even admitted in Senate that the reason that was put in there was to try to reduce the inevitable misuse of this law.

The bill was sold as a “public safety issue.” That’s the first huge problem - the bill does nothing to address public safety. Because it’s breed specific it also suffers from the same flaws that bans suffer, and, in my opinion, may actually reduce “public safety.” Again, when you are fixated on a particular breed, the truly dangerous dogs tend to get overlooked.

Nothing about dog fighting, etc ,etc. No real disincentives to abusers etc, etc. Nothing to protect other breeds, etc. You’ve heard all this from me before.

That blanket covers tons of breeds - Serious potential for abuse. It also sets up a self fulfilling prophecy, in terms of the statistics they would keep. I don’t deny that there are tons of pit bulls in shelters. I suspect that there are also tons of labs, designer dogs etc, etc. Maybe I’m a bad person, but I want those dogs protected also. I want something done about puppymills, and BYBs. Labelling lab-mixes as “pit-bulls,” for example, just serves to conceal those dogs suffering.

In general,
It seems very odd to me, that the same groups that claim “pit bulls represent less than 1% of the population, but X% of dog attacks” also argue that “there are so many pit bulls that special laws are required to control their breeding.” Which is it?
It just seems to me that the same old groups are up to the same old agenda, they’re just using different tactics.

Personally, I don’t think this law would do anything to help “pit bulls.” I think it is a bad law, and there are plenty of good laws available. Accepting bad laws, just because that’s what’s offered, just guarantees that the good laws will never be put in place. Laws like these do nothing to protect the other breeds, so they are doomed to a vicious cycle of adding new breeds.

BTW Breeder regs for all breeds, was on the table in SF. It was one of the panel’s recommendations, but was pulled by the government.

wdawson

September 10th, 2006, 04:17 PM

that description can be any number of breeds ( rotti comes to mind ) and is open to an individual interpretation ( animal control officer , with no breed distinction certification.) then its up to the owner to prove that its not a pit bull , again how do you go about that ?. if you want to ban a certain breed at least be breed specific........thats what they call it , when it clearly is not.

seeker

September 10th, 2006, 07:07 PM

Seeker,

How many pit bulls have killed people since that pomeranian killed that baby? Do you even know?

No I don't but you have my attention and if you know I would like you to tell us and at the same time tell us how many people have died from attacks by other breeds . Thanks

Prin

September 10th, 2006, 07:10 PM

And tell us how they knew they were pitties too.:)

Cygnet

September 10th, 2006, 07:18 PM

It seems to me that the breed identification issue is pretty much a red herring. That is, it is a non-issue. I don't want anybody telling me my mixed breed dog is a pit bull and therefore has to be hauled off and killed, but I also don't want any responsible pit bull owner to be told that their dog is a pit bull and therefore has to be hauled off and killed. The issue isn't so much with whether it is possible to accurately, 100% of the time, figure out what a pit bull is (although, to be candid, it is extremely easy at least 99% of the time) it is what you do with that determination when you make it.

If all you do with the determination is what I propose (i.e require microchipping and spay/neuter) then go ahead and TELL me my mixed breed is a pit bull. I can prove that she is spayed and microchipped, even if I can't prove she isn't a pit bull. And I don't mind doing so, if it will help dogs. And if someone decides my intact purebred is a pit bull (what are they thinking?) , I've got plenty of documentation to EASILY prove them wrong. (registration certificate, show ribbons, title certificates, opinions of AKC judges, OFA certificates, etc.) If I didn't have a huge amount of that kind of stuff, she wouldn't still be intact, whether or not she was a purebred.

I have to say that I don't really understand the notion that we shouldn't support laws that protect pit bulls, just because they don't also address the problem of puppy mills. It never occurred to me to be against PAWS (not to derail this discussion into a discussion of PAWS) because it doesn't address the kinds of breeders who are causing the vast majority of the pit bull problem, for example. The source of the peke-a-poo problem and the source of the pit bull problem are not the same kinds of people and the solutions are also different. Honestly, I think that most of the pit bull people who claim to object to breed specific laws that help pit bulls because they care so much about the puppy mill issue and refuse to do anything to help ANY dogs until that issue is resolved are often just trying to change the subject.

By the way, it is gratifying that this board actually seems to be a place where diversity of opinion is welcomed. Thank you for that.

Prin

September 10th, 2006, 07:27 PM

although, to be candid, it is extremely easy at least 99% of the timeooo where's that link that makes you choose which one is the pitty?

seeker

September 10th, 2006, 07:32 PM

Unfortunately, the pit bull community has mostly convinced itself that there isn't a problem. Go to any "responsible" pit bull board and see how any story of a dog bite by a golden retriever or labrador is greeted with (I have to say this) delight. I have been on pit bull boards which absolutely ignored (that is, nobody even mentioned at all) current stories of pit bulls killing people but where the pit bull owners went on and on about some golden retriever somewhere who bit a child.

I think you might be mistaking this "delight" for relief that the media is reporting on a "preferred" breed .I challenge you to find someone on a so called "responsible" pitbull forum that takes "delight" at a dog attack of any kind. Sorry but that kind of reaction is not coming from a responsible person.
Also you say pitbull community as if we are some kind of subculture or gang. That is hardly the case many pitbull owners have never chained their dog to a tree out of reach of smaller animals in order to tease the dog into being agressive , most of us have not taken a litter of pups and drowned the non agressive ones because they would be no use to us .We have never poked a stick at the dog through his cage . Most of us bought from someone other than a backyard breeder that has 200 dogs chained up in his backyard . Most of us have never seen pitbull fights nor have we had to breakup a dog fight when our dog escaped and attacked a childs dog .Most of our dogs have never had a fight with another dog since they left their fellow litter mates at about 8 weeks of age. And most of us are law abiding people that have legit jobs . We are artists, lawyers, doctors, line workers, students,machinsts, mechanics,engineers some of us are retired and we golf all day .The picture painted here on this post is about drug dealers, fight breeders and general lowlifes that have no respect for their dogs or other people. I suggest that if we recognized aggresivness in our animals would take the proper steps to ensure that nothing ever happens that would harm a person or animal .
That is why most of us are having a hard time with some of the things you say and support.
Also this is why we still believe this is a people problem not a dog problem . I stated in my previuos post as to why that is.

jesse's mommy

September 10th, 2006, 07:39 PM

Thank you Seeker for trying to educate.

wdawson

September 10th, 2006, 07:40 PM

here here seeker.....very well stated

wdawson

September 10th, 2006, 07:49 PM

so what you are saying is it is alright to kill 1% of dogs that are mistaken for pit bulls......assuming that you are such an expert at breed identification....are you a breed identification expert and if so what university did you graduate from and what degree do you hold that quallifies you as an expert.....now that i see you real hatred towards pit bull i really hope you are not a breed identification expert.

Prin

September 10th, 2006, 07:57 PM

ooo where's that link that makes you choose which one is the pitty?
I found it!
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

Good luck!:D

wdawson

September 10th, 2006, 08:10 PM

prin

i just had my wife and 15 yr daughter try........took alot of random clicks to get it:D ..............took me 4 tries the first time i tried when first posted awhile back.

Prin

September 10th, 2006, 08:15 PM

I did it before when it was first posted but even today, it took me like 5-6 tries.

Cygnet

September 10th, 2006, 08:21 PM

I didn't even go to the link because I have seen the test before. I actually did okay the first time I took the test--I chose the AmStaff first, but I cut myself some slack on that error because AmStaffs actually are a kind of pit bull. My second pick was the picture identified as the pit bull. But the reality of seeing an actual dog isn't the same as seeing a (poor quality) picture of a dog, so even people who do badly on this "test" shouldn't assume that the task is an impossible one in real life.

And, no, wdawson, please try to read more carefully and not to mischaracterize what I write. I am not saying "it is okay to kill 1% of dogs that are mistaken for pit bulls." I am not even saying it is okay to kill the 99% of dogs that are called pit bulls that actually ARE pit bulls. I am saying that with mandatory spay/neuter breed specific legislation (as opposed to legislation that bans specific breeds absolutely) it doesn't matter if the breed is sometimes identified incorrectly. Sure...you won't be able to breed your boxer/beagle and sell the puppies if she is misidentified as a pit bull and you are forced to spay her, but guess what? You shouldn't be doing that anyway.

Prin

September 10th, 2006, 08:23 PM

I am saying that with mandatory spay/neuter breed specific legislation (as opposed to legislation that bans specific breeds absolutely) it doesn't matter if the breed is sometimes identified incorrectly. That's the problem. You're talking to people from Ontario where they ARE banned outright and are being killed in significant numbers, so it DOES matter..

wdawson

September 10th, 2006, 08:29 PM

well where i live they have absolutly banned pit bulls......and we are required to spay/neuter...spay/neuter is not my issue here........its the total ban on my breed.........you must be in an area where there is no total ban

Cygnet

September 10th, 2006, 08:47 PM

Seeker,

Obviously I think that there are some pit bull owners who are reachable and who don't want a dangerous dog to intimidate people and to use as a weapon(although there clearly are some pit bull owners who DO want a dangerous dog to intimidate people and to use as a weapon). If I didn't believe that, why would I be posting? I don't believe that most of the people who want a dangerous dog to use as a weapon are educable, quite honestly (which is why I don't post on pit bull dog fighting boards). You can't educate a person not to want what he wants. At least I can't. Feel free to try if you think you can.

The problem, however, is that this faction of relatively responsible pit bull owners mostly seems to lack leadership and there really isn't anybody articulating a coherent plan to help good pit bull owners distance themselves and distinguish themselves from bad ones. The MOST anybody in the pit bull community seems willing to do is say about the horrific practices within the pit bull community are "people shouldn't do that," but then they usually go on to say or at least imply that it is somehow all the fault of the media. (Say what? The media isn't breeding pit bulls and tying them to trees amd drowning the ones who aren't aggressive...) and imply if the media would just stop reporting when pit bulls maul people (which, newsflash, isn't going to happen because the media isn't about promoting pit bulls, it is about covering the news), the problems would be solved.

Uh, no they wouldn't be. There are so many horribly irresponsible pit bull breeders out there marketing so many horribly bred pit bulls (many of whom are bred FOR dangerousness to either other dogs or people) who have no interest in being "educated," that the problem isn't going to get better short of laws. Genetic dog aggression in pit bulls, frankly, attracts a lot of people with vaguely or frankly antisocial personalities to pit bull ownership. Human aggression (which pit bulls are increasingly being bred for by these same antisocial personalities) attracts still more. If the responsible faction of the pit bull community believes that they have support the "rights" of the horribly irresponsible faction, then the whole ship is going down, with all hands. Only by distancing themselves from the irresponsible owners and breeders, and condemning their actions in a meaningful way (which, yes, means supporting laws to stop them from doing the things that they are doing which hurt pit bulls), does the responsible faction of pit bull owners have a hope of prevailing and of salvaging pit bulls.

I honestly think that if just a small percentage of responsible pit bull people had the nerve to stand up to the faction who seems to be controlling pit bull community opinion (Repeat after me: "All breed specific legislation, including bsl that HELPS pit bulls is bad, bad, bad and must be opposed.") that a lot of pit bull people would breath a sigh of relief and jump on board. Instead, anybody who articulates ideas to HELP pit bulls is immediately branded a "pit bull hater," if they come from outside the community and a traitor if they come from within it.

Prin

September 10th, 2006, 08:49 PM

I didn't even go to the link because I have seen the test before. I actually did okay the first time I took the test--I chose the AmStaff first, but I cut myself some slack on that error because AmStaffs actually are a kind of pit bull. Try it again. It only takes a minute- unless you memorized it the first time? I got worse the second time around.

I'm not a pitty expert, but aren't staffies and pitties very different dogs?

Prin

September 10th, 2006, 08:53 PM

The problem, however, is that this faction of relatively responsible pit bull owners mostly seems to lack leadership and there really isn't anybody articulating a coherent plan to help good pit bull owners distance themselves and distinguish themselves from bad ones. Maybe you should read up in the BSL forum a bit before posting something like that. There is a group here that is VERY active in promoting responsible pitbull ownership in Ontario. They ARE the leaders of their community.

Human aggression (which pit bulls are increasingly being bred for by these same antisocial personalities) attracts still more.Again with the generalizations. HOW do you know that? Seriously, how?

phoenix

September 10th, 2006, 09:01 PM

If you read what Cygnet is saying carefully, you'll see that he (?) is NOT for the type of BSL that exists in Ontario. The suggestion is that identified (even misindentified) pitbulls be microchipped and sp/neutered (except show animals)... I'm not sure why ANYONE would be arguing against that. He's saying that the identification is a moot point, since under a different form of bsl, no dog id'd as a pitbull would be pts. This would result in a better bred, better cared for, and 'rarer' dog.

That's the problem. You're talking to people from Ontario where they ARE banned outright and are being killed in significant numbers, so it DOES matter..

Yes. And it is an emotional battle instead of a logical one. (Not surprisingly, since we love our dogs and have had bad past experiences). Like this,

The picture painted here on this post is about drug dealers, fight breeders and general lowlifes that have no respect for their dogs or other people.

You might be so used to this that you look for it even when it is not there. I have not read that into any of C's posts... I don't think he's saying that ALL owners are the cause, but that the irresponsible ones (who breed, fight, chain, abuse etc) need to be somehow reined in for the good of the dogs and society at large. Certainly anyone can see that the pitbull community on pets.ca is a responsible, caring, passionate bunch! But we can NOT say that for every pitbull owner. Or at least, we can not say that for every pitbull (200 with one jerk as an owner? Horrible.)Would you say that pits are the most likely to be abused/mistreated dogs out there? I wonder...and THAT is your pitbull crisis, I think. (maybe greyhounds are...)

*edit: ok, i posted before I read the last exchange... the leadership comment was out of line and does indicate that you may not have a good idea of who you're talking to here...

PS2: Amstaff are included in the bsl in Ontario. Amstaff are a recognized breed under the AKC and I believe that AmPBT are not (I could be wrong)

Prin

September 10th, 2006, 09:08 PM

The problem is, people here are seeing pitties singled out in every post. Yes there need to be laws about responsible ownership and breeding, but for ALL dogs, not just for pitbulls and other dogs that people consider dangerous. This isn't a pitty problem, it's a human problem- a problem of how humans treat and care for their animals, and dogs in particular. Banning pitbulls doesn't do anything. Even if pitbulls were extinct, the problem would still be there- that is the point I'm trying to make about breed IDing and about aggressive breeds/biting breeds- you cannot generalize about one breed. An irresponsible owner will have a menace of a dog, whether it's a jack russell, pomeranian or pitty.

And the other thing is maybe where Cygnet is from, their BSL is different but IMO after pages and pages of offending the people from Ontario who are actively fighting this in the courts and in the media, she/he has to understand that that is not how it is up here and apply a bit more sensitivity.

wdawson

September 10th, 2006, 09:20 PM

since the pit bull hater comment was for me,i will say only this.
we in ontario dont really have an irresponsible pit bull breeding problem , like you keep harping about,OUR PITS ARE BANNED OUTRIGHT,we dont see how you experts can determain what a pit bull or any dog that resembles one really is.......as far as i'm concerned my dog is a mutt.....pit/beagle/lab.....so really he is only 33.33% pit bull...but lumped in with the irresponsible and agressivly trained pit bulls....so you must be a genetics expert

jesse's mommy

September 10th, 2006, 09:22 PM

Excellent post Prin.

Even though I'm not from Canada, I do own a pit mix. We don't have any BSL here in Florida -- YET, but the next town over has a politician who is trying to implement it. BSL of any and all bans spreads like wildfires and can consume any breed, not just pitbulls. I'm doing everything I can here to educate people and help in Ontario as much as I can as well. We are all -- as pet owners, not just pitbull owners -- in this together and need to work together to educate people on being responsible owners and not encourage aggression in their dogs. Unfortunately Cygnet refuses to acknowledge the hard work and effort us responsible pet owners put forth on a daily basis. This is why we are all getting upset. Just wait until boxers or rotties are included on this list. I saw a list the other day that included St. Bernards as dangerous and aggressive dogs.

As I've stated many times before, my scary pitbull was bit on the nose by a JRT and she cowered behind me shaking with her ears down, tail between her legs just peeking through mine. Does this sound like an aggressive dog? Which dog here should be wearing a muzzle?

phoenix

September 10th, 2006, 09:33 PM

Ok. this is getting frustrating.

No politician in their right minds is going to institute a full out dog legislation.

So, as a pitbull owner, you could
a) fight to repeal the law. This either ends in loss or win. If won, you have still not dealt with the public relations battle that will ensue in the media, where future bites/attacks/raids on fighting rings are used to argue the point that the law should be put back into play.

OR>>>

b) you could fight to mitigate the law and have it changed, so that pitbulls are sp/neutered, microchipped. This appeases the public and the politician, while protecting dogs (less are born to be abused, they don't get cancer or forced into puppy milling, etc). It is far easier to police this type of regulation than the current bsl. Don't you get frustrated that you are muzzling your good dogs while the bad ones with irresponsible owners could care less and are walking around without?? What if entire animals could be seized?

I am NOT arguing that bsl is good. I am also NOT arguing that this shouldn't be the case for all dogs. I am trying to look at this pragmatically, and I don't find this a bad solution.

And let me just say. I own a boxer and a boxer/lab mix. Both could easily someday be targeted (although my lab doesn't look at all like a pitbull, but I've read jen Steele's stories and know the risks). I would be FAR more comfortable with a bsl in Ontario that involved sp/neutering and microchipping than I am with what is here now. I just don't think that Ontario's public is going to accept a full repeal, and if they won't accept it, the politicians won't let it happen. Bryant did this for a reason: VOTES.

Prin

September 10th, 2006, 09:36 PM

Yeah, but if Bryant is out... :fingerscr

I just don't want anything like Italy where even Corgis are on the list.:sad:

LM1313

September 10th, 2006, 09:42 PM

I liked the way San Francisco handled it, where they cracked down on BYBers, promoted spay/neuter, cracked down on irresponsible dog owners, and had educational classes for kids on dog safety. The only thing I would change is making it apply for all dogs, not just pit bulls, and adding that show dogs would be exempt from S/N. But, I don't think San Francisco's law is a bad law, even though it only targets pit bulls. It's rooted in common sense and isn't full of hysterics.

wdawson

September 10th, 2006, 09:50 PM

i would like to see a bsl where the breed is identified and not just worded as resembles.........breed specific should mean specific and not resembles or has like characteristics

ChancesMom

September 11th, 2006, 01:20 AM

Chance's Mom,
People always say that the solution to dog problems is "holding owners responsible." But I don't know exactly what you are proposing. What should have happened to the owner in this case? Should she have had to go to jail? Should YOU have had to go to jail when your dog got out and terrorized the chained dog into biting him? (You were worried that your dogs temperament would be affected, but obviously the chained dog's owner also has a legitimate concern--it was your dog who was loose and breaking the law).

Yeah, Cygnet, you are right.

I should have to go to jail because my then 9 year old accidently let the dog out of the house, who then went on to perpetrate the vicious crime of dog butt sniffing before he (my dog) got bit. :rolleyes:

You are also right that my neighbor with the dog who before having to be chained came onto my property and actually attacked me should have immediately prosecuted me for subjecting his dog to a doggie butt sniff.

In fact, all known pit bulls should not be allowed in doggie parks because although this is a natural and non violent act performed by billions of dogs around the world, when pit bulls do this it is the ultimate act of aggression...

and as a pit bull owner, I should also not be allowed to sniff butts because that doggie aggression has probably somehow rubbed off onto me... seeing as we live together and all...

In fact, all dogs who live with dogs that are either a pit bull or in any way could be described or seen as a pit bull, even by the myopic or visually impaired, should be treated as a pit bull because the pit bull has obviously taught the other dogs to be vicious animals... and in this very deep and dark conspiracy the pit bulls have had these other breeds perform acts for them in mafia fashion so that they can keep their muzzles clean, except in the cases of those PBs who have yet to learn the art of performing vicious acts through other breeds.

Just in case you were wondering, I did not ask for the neighbors dog to pay for my vet bills because my dog was on their property... I am not a dweeb... and when their dog was on mine, I did not ask for the dog to be removed as at that time the dog was new to the neighborhood and I had hoped that the neighbors would take care of the problem... They did not... however without any intervention I made sure that my dog never got out again by working with both my young child and my dog.

Further I will ensure that I never sniff your butt. :angel:

Have a great day.

jesse's mommy

September 11th, 2006, 05:10 AM

Wonderful ChancesMom! :thumbs up

Loki

September 11th, 2006, 05:44 AM

It seems to me that the breed identification issue is pretty much a red herring.

Others have answered this. It obviously isn't. You asked my opininion. I answered. The mis-iding of breeds obviously does matter even in a non ban bsl. SF certainly felt it was an issue, because they wanted statistiscs kept to see if the law was actually working. These laws are new and unproven.
We all know how stats can be manipulated and abused to further certain agendas.
Like I said you asked, I answered.

I have to say that I don't really understand the notion that we shouldn't support laws that protect pit bulls, just because they don't also address the problem of puppy mills...

Honestly, I think that most of the pit bull people who claim to object to breed specific laws that help pit bulls because they care so much about the puppy mill issue and refuse to do anything to help ANY dogs until that issue is resolved are often just trying to change the subject.

I'd say that that is the true "red herring" here. To me the issue is about pushing for proper dog laws, not using the opportunity to push for "pit bull" laws. It just seems like every time the opportunity to push for proper laws presents itself the "anti pit bull" crowd tries to make it about "pit bulls."

I've tried to understand your point of view, but I disagree. It's that simple.
I don't think bsl will help the plight of "pit bulls," I think it will just help ensure that even more bsl is put in place.

I sat through the hearings for Ontario's BSL, and listened to actual experts provide potential solutions (that they can actually present proof would work). Other areas fought off the "anti-pit bull" crowd, and got those ideas accepted. To say that politicians won't accept them is false.

The whole bsl thing just distracts from the true issue, and in my opinion does far more harm than good. That is the point.

Cygnet

September 11th, 2006, 06:12 AM

Chance's Mom,

Uh, no. In fact I asked you what you thought should happen to owners whose dogs get loose. Because I have noticed that some people are a bit reluctant to identify the issue. (For example,in the news story that started this thread).

When people want to justify the breeding of dog aggressive dogs, they always say "dog aggression isn't a problem, it is loose dogs who cause the problem." But when it is their dog who is loose, they always say "but my nine year old left the door open. Accidents happen."

I actually agree more with the second point of view. (which seems also to be yours, so maybe you can go back to liking me). Even if you mandated capital punishment for owners of loose dogs, nine year olds are still going to leave the door open sometimes. Even adult owners are highly imperfect. I have had more loose dogs than I can count, and I am a highly responsible dog owner. But if you hold BOTH points of view (i.e. it is okay to breed dangerously dog aggressive dogs because dog aggression isn't a problem if the dog is properly controlled AND that it isn't the owner's fault if that dog occasionally gets loose because, hey, accidents happen) then what you are saying is that nobody is responsible for what happened in the story that started this thread and I don't accept that. Well, of course, there is a contingent here who wants to blame the woman who got her finger bitten off when she was trying to rescue the child from the fighting dogs... I guess you can always blame her.

Cygnet

September 11th, 2006, 06:40 AM

I'm not a pitty expert, but aren't staffies and pitties very different dogs?

No. AmStaffs are an AKC breed, American pit bull terriers are a UKC breed. "Pitties" aren't a breed, they are a generic type of dog which includes both AmStaffs and APBTs (and, most people would say, Staffordshire bull terriers) as well as zillions of irresponsibly bred dogs who were bred to be sold as "pit bulls," but who either aren't registered anywhere, or are registered in the less reputable registries. (Not that either AKC or UKC is a paragon of virtue, but they are certainly less closely associated with dog fighting than some of the other pit bull registries).

People who claim to be able to unerringly distinguish AKC AmStaffs from UKC APBTs have the problem that an AKC AmStaff may ALSO be registered as a UKC APBT. That is, the same dog may literally be both. There are many dogs who have finished championships both as AKC AmStaffs and UKC APBTs and (in those cases at least) they are literally the same breed.

twodogsandacat

September 11th, 2006, 07:31 AM

When discussing the Ontario ban you should consider Canadian statistics and that would mean that the one fatal attack a year in Canada is twelve times more likely to not involve a pit bull. We are a very different country.

When speaking of the American numbers you need to look below the surface. The death of a child in South Carolina by three pit bulls simply adds one more death to those attributed to pit bulls. However when searching the home the police find drugs and weapons. So a drug dealing gang member who owned pit bulls simply for protection ends up killing his own son. Now assume that pit bulls are banned in SC. Would this type of person go our and buy three Golden Retrievers? No. He will move onto the next breed that people would be afraid of and raise those three dogs to be just as viscous.

Similarly if criminals all drove red cars for some reason and red cars were banned do you really expect criminals to start taking the bus? Of course not. The so called pit bull problem has nothing to do with pit bulls.

As for comments regarding 120 pit bulls being killed each day in L.A. shelters justifying the killing of all pit bulls it sounds a lot like the comments that disgraced the former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett. It's true that for many reasons African Americans are disproportionately represented in the US federal prison system population. This fact is fodder for bigots and racists and still doesn't justify his comments.

"you wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies "would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do," then added again, "but the crime rate would go down."

The root issues need to be resolved otherwise the cycle just repeats.

Brooklynn

September 11th, 2006, 03:20 PM

In reply to the question of banning or not banning the ownership of "pit bulls" or restricting only owners of "pit bulls" or forcing mandatory spay/neuter on only owners of "pit bulls", I have some comments:

Re muzzling all pit bulls (and only pit bulls):

Country-wide in Canada, "pit bulls" account for approximately four percent of all bites. They have NEVER killed a child in Canada, unlike 12 other breeds, some of which are considered by most to be friendly household pets.

Most dog bites (approximately 85%) occur on private property - in the family's home, a relative's home, or a neighbour's home (or backyards). Muzzle laws would have no effect on those bites.

So, muzzling all pit bulls in public, assuming that everyone obeyed the law, would possibly prevent 15% of 4% of all bites (that's 0.6% or 1 in 167). Even if you were to up that 4% to around 10% for certain cities, you're still looking at preventing 1.5% of all bites. In the meantime, you have now prevented those thousands of pit bulls (25,000 in Toronto) from adequate socialization with people and pets, thus producing more nervous and eventually more dangerous dogs. It is not an effective solution.

Calgary, by increasing their education to the public and by enforcing their licensing and leash laws, as well as by levying heavy penalties on owners whose dogs bite, was able to reduce their bites by ALL dogs by 75% (as compared to the 0.6% to 1.5% with the muzzle pit bulls suggestion).

To me, there is no comparison.

Now, step away from the "pit bull" question for a second and ask yourself these questions:

Is it acceptable for a government to target a group of individuals (dog owners) without any reliable way to determine if a person actually belongs to that group?

Is it acceptable for a government to target a group of individuals (dog owners) without being able to produce a single shred of scientific or statistical evidence that a dog with a particular look is dangerous?

Is it acceptable for a government to remove the following rights (according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) from an arbitrarily chosen group of individuals, with no science or proof:

Section 1: a guarantee to the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society;

Section 6(1): the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada;

Section 6(2): the right to move to and take up residence in any province and the right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province;

Section 7: the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice;

Section 8: the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure;

Section 9: the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned;

Section 11(d): the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

Section 15: the right to be equal before and under the law and the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.

All of those FUNDAMENTAL citizen rights are currently being denied to RESPONSIBLE dog owners. This is not about "pit bulls" or Rottweilers or any other breed. This is about your rights and my rights.

If you think this legislation is just about "pit bulls", then you've fallen for the same lies that Bryant and McGuinty were hoping the whole Ontario public would fall for.

At this moment in time, a police officer can walk into your house without a warrant, seize your dog, charge you with various charges that can result in up to $10,000 in fines AND UP TO SIX MONTHS IN JAIL. You do NOT have to own a pit bull for this to happen. You do NOT have to own a dog that even looks like a pit bull. All that is needed is for someone to complain about your dog, regardless of the breed.

If, God forbid, they also happen to add the phrase "pit bull", even if you own a Shar-Pei or a Labrador Retriever or a Bull Terrier or a Rhodesian Ridgeback or a Boxer/Lab cross or a whatever, you are screwed. You WILL not get your dog back!

Is this an acceptable method of government? This government said that they would listen to the experts and every expert said don't do it. Some listening they did!

At my last count, across the United States and Canada, I have found somewhere between 45 and 55 breeds (depending on some possible duplications using different breed names) that are targeted by Breed Specific Legislation, including mandatory spay/neuter, muzzling, microchipping, special licence fees, higher fines, mandatory deaths of offending dogs, etc, etc, etc.

You think this is about "pit bulls"? It has nothing to do with them. They're just the current convenient target for a gradual erosion of our ability to own our choice of dogs, period, until perhaps we won't be allowed to own any dogs, period. They're certainly making it as difficult as possible to own a dog.

Oh, and mandatory spay/neuter of a specific type of dog IS A BAN. It just takes longer.

Prin

September 11th, 2006, 03:24 PM

That is an amazing post, Brooklynn.:grouphug:

phoenix

September 11th, 2006, 06:57 PM

It is interesting that as long as you come down on the "right" side of the fence, no one asks you for the source of your stats.

Good point about the socialization. I think it would worsen the problem for sure. That's why the pitbull coop has walks and other events, which is a good short term solution.

I have to disagree with your last statement however.

Oh, and mandatory spay/neuter of a specific type of dog IS A BAN. It just takes longer.

Absolutely not. If the specific type of dog in question is unregisterable, unshowable, uncertifiable, untraceable... it is just good practice to have a mandatory sp/n. IMO.

I think I've heard this argument before. I think it was on the back of a pick up truck, "Take away my firearms no way". Life isn't about rights, it is about responsibilities.

Cygnet

September 11th, 2006, 07:15 PM

For all the people who want to write long posts about how awful the Ontario pit bull rules are, hey, go for it but nobody is arguing. I have been paying pretty close attention to this thread and I don't recall anybody here saying that the Ontario laws should be model legislation for everyplace else. So (at least as far as the posters here have said, who knows what the lurkers are thinking) you are pretty much arguing to yourselves.

So it would probably be more productive to think of what the laws SHOULD be to protect pit bulls, rather than what they shouldn't be. After all, if your lawsuit fails, that's pretty much all she wrote as far as pit bull ownership in Ontario. On the other hand, it seems to me likely that the court will find minor problems with the law, but also (as courts like to do) basically tell the government how to fix it to make it pass constitutional muster next time around.

If the present law gets thrown out on a fixable technicality, the likelihood is great that the technicality will be fixed and the law repassed. But if the pit bull sommunity is ready, with your concensus of responsible pit bull owners, to start lobbying hard for rational, sane pit bull regulations that actually help pit bulls (mandatory tattooing of all pit bulls, mandatory spay/neuter of all non-AKC or Canadian Kennel Club or UKC registered show dog pit bulls) you can make the strong sentiment to "do something about pit bulls" actually work to HELP pit bulls. (And also to help responsible pit bull owners and responsible pit bull breeders). Or, in the alternative, you can just say that all breed specific laws are bad because, uh, they are breed specific (isn't that what they mean when they talk about "circular reasoning?") and hope that the next time a pit bull mauls somebody the media doesn't notice and nobody in the government says "didn't we ban those things?"

Mandatory spay/neuter of dogs that aren't show dogs isn't a ban, by the way. The ethical breeder does all those things anyway and goes way beyond that and only breeds dogs that are titled and health screened. The ethical breeder doesn't consider adherence to these standards to be a "ban" of their dogs or lines or breed. Indeed, the ethical breeder recognizes that it is exactly the opposite and is what is needed for the healthy survival of their dogs, line or breed. This mindset clearly isn't going to happen by choice in the vast majority of the pit bull breeder community. That is why breed specific regulations are necessary to put it into place.

seeker

September 11th, 2006, 07:21 PM

Life isn't about rights, it is about responsibilities.

Wow , were did that come from ?
Does this mean in order to be responsible we should forget about rights ? Or does it mean that if we fight to keep our rights were are being unresponsible ?
Please explain , maybe I misunderstood .

Prin

September 11th, 2006, 07:28 PM

It is interesting that as long as you come down on the "right" side of the fence, no one asks you for the source of your stats.
Actually if you look in Brooklynn's profile, there's some credentials in there that make it a little more believable.:shrug:

Absolutely not. If the specific type of dog in question is unregisterable, unshowable, uncertifiable, untraceable... it is just good practice to have a mandatory sp/n. IMO.
So if you "BSL" Staffies, who are showable, certifiable and traceable, but then you neuter them all, how is that not a ban? Where is the next generation going to come from?

Prin

September 11th, 2006, 07:31 PM

The ethical breeder does all those things anyway and goes way beyond that and only breeds dogs that are titled and health screened. The ethical breeder doesn't consider adherence to these standards to be a "ban" of their dogs or lines or breed.What do you call an ethical breeder who is no longer permitted to breed at all anymore by law?

seeker

September 11th, 2006, 07:52 PM

Cygnet do you know how many people died due to pitbull attacks since the pom killed the baby ? Because the way you asked if I/we knew ,you implied that you did . I still would like to know.
As for us coming up with a better law regarding dogs of all breeds . There were some ideas put forth in out parliament during the readings of the bill . One in particular was presented by an opposing party as a private members bill and ignored , just like we were during the 3 meetings the government held in order to hear from the experts .And there were many experts brought in I think even one of the top people from the American verterinary association at great expense I might add . Others here might know and be able to drop a few names and our organization paid for flights and accomodations for these experts. Yes better ideas were propsed than BSL is bad because BSL is bad . Ideas that would have covered all breeds , that not only would have protected people but dogs as well . Ideas that would have made puppy mill breeders criminals and put more bite into cruelty laws, controls on backyard breeding ,harbouring of vicious dogs of any breed etc etc.All ignored.
We have a "model" law in Calgary that has reduced bites from all breeds by over 75% that is not BSL .No BSL law could ever achieve 75% reduction in all breed dog bite statistics IMHO. The person that designed this law in Calgary was willing and able to travel from Calgary to make a presentation to the Ontario government and to assist in drawing up the legislation . The word from the Government was that there was no room in the schedule to meet or hear this person.
Calgary's law has been in effect for a # of years so it is not a one year stat , it is credible .

phoenix

September 11th, 2006, 08:14 PM

Wow , were did that come from ?
Does this mean in order to be responsible we should forget about rights ? Or does it mean that if we fight to keep our rights were are being unresponsible ?
Please explain , maybe I misunderstood .

No that is not what it means.
It is in response to those who clamor for rights and freedoms without considering the responsibilities that are attached to those rights. In our society today the rights of the individual have superceded the idea of social responsibility... the crux of so many problems today is this quoting of rights without thought to the responsibilities that go right alongside of them.

I have no quarrel with the pitbull owners on this site. I do have with the myriads who fight, breed and abandon these animals. They certainly have the right to do so in this society. So you'll excuse me if it offends me to have the charter thrown about with no mention of the heavy duty of social responsibility that so often gets forgotten in that discussion.

phoenix

September 11th, 2006, 08:27 PM

Actually if you look in Brooklynn's profile, there's some credentials in there that make it a little more believable.:shrug:
well that's interesting. would still like to know where the stats come from to see for myself.

So if you "BSL" Staffies, who are showable, certifiable and traceable, but then you neuter them all, how is that not a ban? Where is the next generation going to come from?

duh. No one is saying that. The point was to have a mandatory sp/n of UNREGISTERED (and unregisterable) pitbulls. I've heard you say before how the two "worlds" of the pound dog and the show dog don't meet... I think that was probably right, and if unreg dogs were sp/n you would certainly go a long way to bettering the breed (as legit breeders are actually trying to breed for temperament AND looks, as opposed to the street breeders). Just my opinion I guess.
I'm getting a little tired of this, seems like instead of forging understanding there is either deliberate misunderstanding or just plain unwillingness to hear another opinion. It's sad because I think overall we have the same goal in mind. You're really not going to go from the current form of Ontario BSL to no restrictions, I just don't believe that there is the climate for that, no matter how much education or outreach the community tries, unless the street/fighter groups and bybs are stopped. I won't argue that this perception has been borne out of media, or bias, or prejudice, but I still think that if you were wise, you would be looking at some kind of contingency plan or compromise.

phoenix

September 11th, 2006, 08:30 PM

Yes better ideas were propsed than BSL is bad because BSL is bad . Ideas that would have covered all breeds , that not only would have protected people but dogs as well . Ideas that would have made puppy mill breeders criminals and put more bite into cruelty laws, controls on backyard breeding ,harbouring of vicious dogs of any breed etc etc.All ignored.
We have a "model" law in Calgary that has reduced bites from all breeds by over 75% that is not BSL .No BSL law could ever achieve 75% reduction in all breed dog bite statistics IMHO. .

Yes. Excellent post. Thank you for that. This is the type of thing I've been waiting to hear and had not heard. I would back something like that in a second.

Prin

September 11th, 2006, 08:38 PM

But if staffies are part of BSL, it won't matter if they're registered or not. That's the problem, as I mentioned before, there are two (at least) discussions going on here- one side is talking about ideals and great alternative to BSL laws in other places, and the other camp is saying, if things stay as they are, none of that will happen in Ontario and all the pitties will die. People are preaching the best case scenario, when in Ontario they're living the worst.

All I think we need is a little sensitivity, as I also said before. Because while people are saying breed IDing doesn't matter, s/n programs don't hurt anybody and so on, to the people in Ontario, they DO matter. Their dogs are DYING because of misidentification. The ethical breeders are shut down, while the bad breeders have no good animal protection laws to stop them.

It's a very personal, emotional subject, and people really need to understand that before they post generalizations. I'm not even in Ontario, but I'm sensitive to the fact that it's going to spread and we're next, IMO.

They might not be able to overturn this completely, fine. But right now, we have to understand that these people are living with the possibility of their dogs being taken away without just cause at any moment and slaughtered. Read the threads in this forum. Very few have happy endings- even without attacks or anything..

phoenix

September 11th, 2006, 08:41 PM

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize this was a pity party (pun intended), I thought it was an attempt to problem solve. I'll take my idealistic self elsewhere.:sad:

Prin

September 11th, 2006, 08:44 PM

It's not a pity party. :rolleyes: But it started out as a misunderstanding of the laws and the role of responsible ownership and flared up.

I'm not referring to your posts when I talk about the generalizations though.;)

Cygnet

September 11th, 2006, 09:17 PM

Re pit bull deaths from pit bulls since the pom killed the baby, I don't have those figures easily available. In 2000 (the year that the pom killed the baby) in the US, there were 3 deaths attributed to confirmed pit bulls and one to a chow/pit bull mix and a pit bull mix, and four attributed to pit bull type dogs (i.e. the author was not able to independently confirm that they were pit bulls, or they looked to her to be not quite pure bred, although she could not identify any other breed). There were 19 total deaths in 2000, so even if you only count confirmed pit bulls, they are WAY disproportionately represented in terms of killing people because pit bulls aren't 15% of the US dog population. If you count dogs that are mostly pit bulls (and were probably sold as pit bulls to their owners), almost half of the deaths were atttributable to dogs that were identified as pit bulls in 2000. Plus there was one American Bulldog (included in some breed specific legislation). Otherwise, it was a mishmash of the usual suspects (rottweiler, husky, chow, wolfdog). There has NEVER been a year dominated by labradors and goldens. In recent years it has always been pit bulls except for two (during the peak of rottweiler populariity which has since plummeted) years when pit bulls and rottweilers were battling it out for the top spot. (Source: "Fatal Dog Attacks" by Karen Delise).

Last year, unfortunately, was a particularly horrific year for pit bulls killing people, so don't expect those figures to improve (in the US anyway).

Note that the breed specific legislation I propose would make it illegal to breed all those "pit bull type" dogs (not quite purebred, unconfirmable as purebred pit bulls but looking enough like pit bulls to inflate pit bull statistics). Since EVERY one of those dogs is irresponsibly bred, eliminating those dogs would be a big help for pit bull PR.

Cygnet

September 11th, 2006, 09:22 PM

[QUOTE=Prin]

All I think we need is a little sensitivity, as I also said before. Because while people are saying breed IDing doesn't matter, s/n programs don't hurt anybody and so on, to the people in Ontario, they DO matter. Their dogs are DYING because of misidentification. The ethical breeders are shut down, while the bad breeders have no good animal protection laws to stop them.

QUOTE]

I don't understand, Prin. Who exactly is hurt by a law that says that all pit bulls have to be microchipped and unregistered, non-show dog pit bulls have to be spayed/neutered? How exactly are they hurt?

Prin

September 11th, 2006, 09:28 PM

OMG, seriously? In Ontario, it's not just microchipping and spay/neutering. That is what you aren't understanding.

Pike

September 11th, 2006, 09:32 PM

This thread has run it's course, in the spirit of intelligent debate, and will now be closed.